Dismissed

Pilaka Delip Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC1 Oct 2013CRLP/10237/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition for bail filed by accused No. 7, who was alleged to have received Rs. 3 lakhs as part of a conspiracy involving murder and criminal breach of trust. The court, weighing the serious nature of offences and the accused's role, denied bail and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition filed for bail under Sections 437 and 439 CrPC was dismissed, and bail was denied to the petitioner.

Pilaka Delip Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Corruption | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.10237 of 2013

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner-Accused No.7 under Sections 437 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking bail in Crime No.211 of 2013 of III Town Law & Order Police Station, Rajahmundry Urban, East Godavari District registered for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 380, 406 and 408 of IPC and 25 of Indian Arms Act, 1950 and Section 3(ii)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with 34 of IPC.

¶4

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitionerAccused No.7 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-state.

¶5

3. According to the remand report, A1 to A4 conspired to commit the offences of criminal breach of trust by way of embezzling the cash entrusted to them for safe custody in the vault, which is punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with 120-B IPC. They also conspired to do away with the life of the deceased by killing him in heinous manner and in pursuance of their conspiracy, they hanged the deceased to death, with an intention to conceal the offences committed by them earlier and to commit theft of the available cash in the vault, which is punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 IPC. Thus, they committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 120-B and 302 IPC. According to the prosecution as the deceased belongs to Madiga community, A1 to A4 also liable for punishment under Section 3(ii)(v) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989. However, the role attributed to the petitioner – A7 is that A1 gave an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to A7 and after the arrest of A7 by the

¶6

investigating officer in front of his house at Kothapet, Dhavaleswaram at 12.00 noon on interrogation, he corroborated the confession made by A1 with regard to the misappropriated amounts, receiving of Rs.3.00 lakhs.

¶7

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-A7 would submit that A7 is not aware of any of the offences allegedly committed by A1 to A4 and therefore, he can be granted bail.

¶8

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is at crucial stage. If A7 is granted bail, he will interfere with the process of investigation as he is closely associated with the remaining accused.

¶9

6. Considering the serious nature of the crime and also the role attributed to petitioner - A7, I am not inclined to grant bail to A7.

¶10

7. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶11

R. KANTHA RAO, J.

¶12

1^st October 2013, Rns

Pilaka Delip Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pilaka Delip Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Selam Vasu , Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Muggu Jayaraju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Moka Subrahmanyam Vs The State of A.P.

Manganti Srinivasa Rao Vs The State Sho.

Dudi Ramesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kanamarlapudi Surenderbabu, , K.Surendra Gupta, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh